openstack
/
election
Code Issues Proposed changes

Adding SpamapS for TC 

Change-Id: Id7e7203249d64d655677aca54ff415d0c5642d82
This commit is contained in:
Clint Byrum 2016-09-29 16:12:23 -07:00
parent 32472d940a
commit 2a6be7a4fe
1 changed files with 53 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

53
candidates/ocata/TC/SpamapS.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
Let's make OpenStack great again.
If you don't know me, I'm very good. The code and designs I make
are tremendous, and I intend to contribute to the TC bigly. The other
candidates are sad, and they want OpenStack to be a third world project,
no good.
OpenStack, could be the greatest cloud in the history of clouds, but to
get there, you need me, to make sure our clouds are the greatest. We
need to test the clouds, I'm talking about EXTREME cloud vetting,
EXTREME cloud vetting. You know the other TC's are laughing at us,
because we don't have such a great TC.
The biggest problem we have is people rewriting parts of OpenStack in Go.
They're bringing threads, they're compiled, with errors handled at the
point of return, and some of them, I assume, are good programmers. So
when I'm elected to the TC, I will build a wall, and make Go pay for it.
...
Ok if you're still reading and you don't take things too seriously,
then hello. I'm Clint Byrum, known as "SpamapS" on IRC, and I want to
serve you on the OpenStack Technical Committee. You may recognize me
from various scalability and deployment discussions.
OpenStack has a number of challenges that face it in the immediate. There
is a crisis of identity that we're only just now wrapping our arms
around, and a question about whether or not this should be something
decided at a centralized level by the TC or not. Are we a toobox? Are
we a product? Can we be both? These are real things, and the TC should
debate them. However, I don't think the TC should force the community to
do anything it doesn't want to do as a whole. If the community really
wants to end the big tent, we should listen, inform, and debate, and
decide whether or not we think it is in the best interest to do so based
on our own expertise, the experience thus far, and a plan to go forward.
It is my personal belief that the big tent has largely been a success
for OpenStack project teams, but created a problem of confusion that we
should resolve. The recent efforts to more clearly define OpenStack have
been positive, and I would like to help the TC continue down that road.
In fact, I have recently started an Architecture Working Group to help
define and shape what OpenStack is at a technical design level. Whether
pieces have been evolved apart from one another, or specifically designed
and built to spec, OpenStack hasn't done a good job of writing some
of those things down. I believe the Architecture Working Group will
be capable of improving that, and I want the TC to have some of that
influence built in.
So, if you want to see more design, consensus building, and an eye for
scaling on the TC, then please consider casting a vote for me.
Thank you.